I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice. On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime. Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night. . . . I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.

Hays has been on a roll lately, in obsessing over sexual matters, that he delights in relating to the Catholic Church. In one post, he claimed that the martyrdom of St. Sebastian as depicted in Catholic art "betrays the homoerotic and sadomasochistic undercurrent in major streams of Catholic piety". In another sewer-inspired masterpiece ("Nuns gone wild!"), Hays took a biblical passage and came very close to mocking it (and God Himself), writing, among other ridiculous things: "dear old Dave . . . should produce a Spring Break video of the Poor Clares." In yet another one for the ages, Hays had some ludicrously juvenile fun at the expense of nuns, by pursuing a sadomasochistic theme:

Following recent revelations that his predecessor used to perform self-flagellation, Benedict XVI has issued an Apostolic Letter instituting the Order of Carmelite Dominatrices. In place of the standard habit, the habit of Carmelite dominatrices consists of a leather catsuit and stiletto thigh-boots. Benedict XVI also amended the Codex Iuris Canonici to include a new provision on holy spanking.Carmelite dominatrices will be assigned to the pope, the college of cardinals, and visiting bishops to assist the princes of the church in their sanctification.

All this from a man (himself single at age 50, for the record) who defends masturbation. Hays, shortly afterwards, made several other remarks along these pitiful lines:

But because the Roman Church flagrantly disregards the teaching of Scripture, it ends up codifying pagan perversions. In Catholic spirituality, piety and immorality become indistinguishable. . . . Catholic dogma which actually underwrites its masochistic brand of self-mortification.

Catholicism substitutes fetishism for real grace. It fetishises “holy” persons, buildings, paintings, furniture, relics, &c. . . . Protestants are supposed to defer to Catholic fetishism. Catholics wax indignant of you dare to treat their ascriptively holy persons as ordinary men and women like you and me because, deep down, there is no depth to Catholic piety. In practice, externals are all they’ve got. So they cling to their externals for dear life. . . . for them, ascriptive holiness trumps actual holiness.. . . Catholics wax indignant over sadomasochistic comparisons while they remain blithely oblivious to the sadomasochistic spirituality which is codified in their own theological system.

Catholic culture tends to swing back and forth between viewing women as saints and woman as whores–without much in-between . . . Catholic piety fosters a two-story morality: a nunnery or monastery on the second floor, but downstairs is another story–in more ways than one.

Steve "Whopper" Hays has now launched into the stratosphere after being reminded by a Catholic of his sanctioning of the immoral sexual practice of masturbation, including lengthy reiterations of his great love for Catholic piety, spirituality, and theology:

* * * * *

Actually, it's the folks like you, who can't have a grown-up discussion about sexual morality, who ought to stay away from blogging.And I notice that you continue to support the institutionalized sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic church.The question is what Scripture permits, prohibits, or prescribes in the realm of sexual conduct. In some cases, Scripture may be silent. In that event, we then evaluate the behavior in light of natural revelation.

Whether or not it's a "disordered act" is the very point at issue. All you're doing is to parrot what your denomination tells you. . . . another example of why Catholics can't have grown-up conversations about sexuality. All we get from the likes of you are adolescent snickers. The message that sends to young people is to seek advice from anyone other than a Catholic. No wonder their priests abuse underage boys–with the tacit consent of Catholic laymen.

Whether or not masturbation is immoral is the very issue in dispute. It’s moral status is an issue which needs to be argued, not assumed. And this is an issue which confronts every teenage boy, so it merits a serious and respectful analysis.

This is one reason, though not the only one, why the Catholic church has so many sex scandals. The inability to have an adult discussion of human sexuality.

i) Among other problems, the Roman church is the victim of its own legalism. Legalism treats innocent or debatable practices as if they were guilty practices.

The inevitable result of legalism is to precipitate the very thing it fears. By creating a list of pseudo-sins, it ends up fostering reactionary types of genuine immorality that are worse than anything it was trying to avoid in the first place.

ii) The Roman church suffers from a number of sexual hang-ups. This is reflected on such issues as “artificial” contraception [a practice that Calvin and Luther deplored], clerical celibacy [urged by Jesus (Mt 19:10-12) and Paul (1 Cor 7:7-8, 17, 32-35, 38) for those who are called to it], and the perpetual virginity of Mary [a belief accepted by Calvin, Luther, and many other "Reformers"] – including the Gnostic/Docetic refinement of her virginity in partu.

By fixating on pseudo-sins, by treating what is innocent or natural as if it were guilty, the end-result is to engender aggravated forms of immorality.

Yet these aggravated sins don’t bother them nearly as much as the pseudo-sins.

You can’t get any worse than that, but nothing is too bad for a good Catholic. Hence, there’s never a dearth of Catholic lawyers on retainer of the Diocese to intimidate victims and stonewall authorities.

The church of Rome might as well redesign the architecture of its churches to reflect its de facto policy: have a daycare in the basement to serve as a harem for the priest, have a law office in the rectory to defend the priest or bishop who’s caught in the act. One-stop shopping.

Yes, the church of Rome condemns sexual abuse the way the Mafia condemns organized crime. It “condemns” sexual abuse by shielding abusive priests. By shielding complicit bishops. It’s says a lot about the Catholic concept of morality that they think what an institution says on paper is all that matters–regardless of how it actually conducts business.

[engaging in a silly attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of traditional Christian (not just Catholic) ethical principles] i) A wet dream also creates an organism without copulation. Therefore, a wet dream is an intrinsically evil act and disordered on many levels.. . . So if I listen to my favorite music or munch on a chocolate ice cream cone for my own enjoyment, then I’m guilty of an intrinsically evil and disordered act. . . .

i) That depends on how you define lust. Is finding a beautiful woman attractive ipso facto lustful? Should beautiful women be required to don Burqas?

20 comments:

This is truly revolting, I wasn't aware Hays had these issues and I'm glad you brought this to light (I read their blog often). I would have thought Hays was too clear headed to be able to slip into thinking this way, but this just demonstrates we are all blinded by sin to some extent.

But still, I see here a problem that I've seen elsewhere with you and most obviously with your critiques of Luther. You cannot refute a position by pointing to someone who holds it and dragging in all their personal aberrations. We all have aberrations in some areas of our lives. Do you like it when people attack corrupt Popes? This is just ad hominem when used in place of addressing the issue itself.

The issue in this post is Hays' juvenile obsessions with various sexual matters, as shown in his posts lately that have that theme.

I was writing about the biblical evidence for mortification of the flesh. Hays then chose to write asinine posts about sadomasochistic nuns and nuns at spring break, etc. During that, it came to light how he had overtly defended masturbation. I had already debated him on that before, so it was not all new to me: just the particulars of his 2004 statement.

I'm simply reporting that, to illustrate the bankruptcy of the man's arguments (and his moral theology). He wants to hang himself with this rotgut? Then I will be glad to broadcast it also on my blog. It's already public; so it is fair game.

Remember, this is a guy who states that I am "evil" and have an "evil character." If you want to object to ad hominem, there is your target. But all I'm doing is reporting the man's own facile arguments.

My Luther research is simply amateur historiography. I highly doubt that you even know what my position on Luther the man is.

In any event, I am as entitled to write about any aspect of his life as anyone else is: including all his biographers.

C. Andiron: You cannot refute a position by pointing to someone who holds it and dragging in all their personal aberrations.

Adomnan: Why not? Hays tells dirty jokes about nuns, which he believes he's justified in doing because of his claim that the Catholic Church has unhealthy attitudes about sexuality. What could be more relevant than to examine Hays's own unhealthy ideas about sexuality, which include his urge to tell scandalous "jokes" about consecrated virgins?

C. Andiron: Do you like it when people attack corrupt Popes?

Adomnan: Why should we have a problem with that, providing that the "attack" is accurate and not slander?

Besides, Hays and his blog attack popes, corrupt and non-corrupt, all the time. The current exchanges began over Hays's scurrilous and sniggering attack on Pope John Paul II. So if you don't like this kind of behavior, then take it up with Hays, not Dave.

C. Andiron: This is just ad hominem when used in place of addressing the issue itself.

Adomnan: I don't get this at all. Dave has addressed all of the issues that Luther raised, apart from any criticism of Luther's behavior.

You seem to be saying that if we disagree with someone's "position," we can never criticize his behavior. Dave has done both with Luther, criticizing his positions and his behavior. What's wrong with that?

Hays tells dirty jokes about nuns, which he believes he's justified in doing because of his claim that the Catholic Church has unhealthy attitudes about sexuality. What could be more relevant than to examine Hays's own unhealthy ideas about sexuality, which include his urge to tell scandalous "jokes" about consecrated virgins?

This is an excellent point. He says our views are lacking; we respond by saying that his are. But there is no moral equivalence in the two positions whatever.

Hays has not only the Bible against him, but also traditional Protestant teaching on masturbation, contraception, and the perpetual virginity of Mary.

He posits hypothetical scenarios about S&M nuns that aren't true, while at the same time he may very well be (I don't assert this, because I don't know for sure) experimenting with masturbation and actually engaging in grave sin, since he has said it is permissible for single men as a sexual outlet for avoidance of lust (ha ha), and he is a single man himself.

Therefore, his behavior in making tasteless sexual jokes and rationalization of grave sin is entirely relevant. It appears to be a personal attack because Hays' ethical positions are so bizarre and indefensible in the first place.

I don't think I'll ever be able to read another post by him without thinking about Dave's quotes, and I have a weak stomach... maybe Dave's approach is effective after all. I'll have to restrict myself to clean apologists, like Mark Driscoll ;)

Really? Seems like the same old Steve Hays to me. OTOH, no doubt he is acutely embarrassed by being called on his hypocrisies and sins, and that accounts for a stepping-up of his usual acerbic, petty, sarcastic put-downs of anyone he disagrees with.

You know, after seeing all your countless debates with anti-catholics and radical something or others (such as this man), I think that the next book you publish ought to be called "How to talk to Fanatics: A practical guide to conversing with those whose Ideology exceeds their intelligence and would like to see you dead, by Dave Armstrong." I think you have all the experience to produce such a work. lol

But no; all that is fine, yet if I call someone (who thoroughly deserves it) an ass, using biblical, Shakespearean, and even Calvin(ist) language, all hell breaks loose.

Oh no! There I go with my foul mouth again!

Lying, smearing, slandering, calumnies, deliberate misrepresentation after a billion corrections, calling someone a psychotic, making fun of nuns, defending despicable mortal sins like masturbation, are all fine and dandy, but don't dare ever say the word "ass" or more judgmental-than-thou King will have you in hell within the hour . . .

“The church of Rome might as well redesign the architecture of its churches to reflect its de facto policy: have a daycare in the basement to serve as a harem for the priest, have a law office in the rectory to defend the priest or bishop who’s caught in the act. One-stop shopping.”

As ridiculous as it is slanderous - worthy of a Luther or a Calvin! How often such talk is the result of an uneasy conscience!

And compare the above to some of Luther's own vile and hypocritical slanders...

“The Curia, governing body of the Catholic Church, was depicted as an assembly of sexually ambiguous monsters: ‘hermaphrodites, androgynes, catamites [cynaedi], . . . [pedicones], and similar monsters of nature.' 12 Switching from the vernacular to the Latin (Erstlich antworte ich Latinisch) – a device rarely deployed in texts like this one that were aimed at a broad circulation- Luther shrouded the sexually most explicit part of his treatise in Latin, the language of erudition, while claiming to address the papacy in the sacred language of Western Christendom. 13

"This wavering between two languages emerges as analogous to the indeterminacy of sex, polemically projected onto the leaders of the Roman Church. The Holy See . . . was unveiled as the site of endless gender confusion (not the allusion to the myth of Popess Joan)." 14p. 142.

Note 12. (p. 248).

Pray for such misguided (and apparently) joyless souls!______________

"God is one, Christ is one, and the Church is one. There is but one episcopal authority (cathedra), which the Lord built upon a rock. No other altar may be set up, and no new priesthood may be established, except the one altar and the one priesthood."

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).